Experts Weigh In On Medical Marijuana ‘Hotel Certifications’

[GregS]

Greg, mostpeople do not want to be made public spectacles for our entertainment. The one ever common thread amongst victims of the court is that they do not want their names spread all over the state.  So, unless it is ok with the defendant, I tend not to ever promote or reveal names.  This is also why I am privy to information most are not. Discretion.  I can tell you stories of people receiving cash compensation for stolen medicine by the courts, police officers delivering cannabis, hashish and other items to peoples homes and so many other fun stories,.... BUT, the people do not want it known.

 

 Let me tell you, MANY Sec. 8 defenses have collapsed around physicians.  They are there. You go find them.  District and circuit across the state.

 

 Enjoy.

Name two.

 

Those sound exactly like the kind of stuff we should know.

Edited November 8, 2013 by GregS

[trichcycler]

I think I understand. But why challenge the registration process at all, even if you can?  The state has the same paperwork to be completed, and compliant, with no issues. Every knock I hear of includes some intent of following the law, some intent of skirting it, to varying degrees. I hear of nobody 100% per state compliant with any issues at all, ever. I'd say do as the state says, if you want to play by the state rules. dunno, been working out pretty well for everybody I know thusfar.

 

If you think you have a sound way of skirting the application process, I would submit it to an attorney, as you may have, and move with it. I understand the point being driven here, but not your motivation with the form, unless of course its not the form at all, but the point.

[+Malamute]

99% +- of people utilizing this program are having absolutely zero problems using the program.  :-)

[trichcycler]

why do some posts have a "like this" option and other don't?

[Dr. Bob]

I told you the cases did not involve conclusive arguments regarding the venue, except to conclude that it is not a dispositive issue. We're done with them. They do not support certifications held only in specific venues. Got anything else?

 

Wanna try answering my questions?

Yawn, 

 

No Greg, not really, I don't have anything to prove.  I doubt you would understand them anyhow.  My point was made, so was Mal's and everyone else in here. I doubt I'll even visit this thread again, nothing left of value.

[GregS]

99% +- of people utilizing this program are having absolutely zero problems using the program.  :-)

Your source please?

[Dr. Bob]

Your source please?

[GregS]

Yawn, 

 

No Greg, not really, I don't have anything to prove.  I doubt you would understand them anyhow.  My point was made, so was Mal's and everyone else in here. I doubt I'll even visit this thread again, nothing left of value.

Damm. To think we could have our azzes kicked in jail if we don't come to your clinic. Now I have to make a decision, dammit. Sure would like to know what that was like. Hmm?

 

I wonder if a judge would laugh at me, the way one did you, if my cert came from Speedway.

[GregS]

 

Your source please?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaa

 

Pathetic narcissism comes immediately to mind.

[GregS]

Anybody know where Cav has been?

[imiubu]

I do hope that he is well and maybe just a busy guy right now.

I miss him around here also.

[GregS]

BTW. I have been sitting on this, a comment from a prominent attorney. Because I cannot reach this individual to get permission to quote by name, it will have to do until and unless I can. It regards protection for caregivers under sec. 8 who have entered into a private notarized agreement with a patient, and in this particular example an instance where the patient cannot or will not testify:

 

"Technically you are saying that certain elements are being met through the agreement?  In other words, the pt would be asserting in the agreement that the cannabis was for medical use, for example, and thus his refusal to testify would be attenuated.  Such an agreement could certainly help demonstrate intent, or lack thereof, on the part of the cg.  So, yes, it could prove to be helpful."

 

And there is this:

 

"Well, if it wasn't ruled hearsay and excluded (which in my opinion it is admissible hearsay under the business records exception), then it would still be subject to the prosecutor's voir dire. Make no mistake, the prosecutor would attack the veracity of the document. At that point it would become an issue for the trier of fact (either the jury, or the judge if a bench trial). The trier of fact would decide how much weight to give the document based on witness credibility, etc. Also, one must realize that the practicality of introducing the contract into evidence would require someone to authenticate it. That would probably mean the defendant/cg would have to testify. That could potentially but a defendant in the line of fire.

 

As for remaining within section 4 weight limits, in reality that could still be a problem under the AD.  Too many people assume, or think, that since sec. 4 allows 2.5ozs then that is per se reasonable.  However, even if you could assume that it is per se reasonable, that still doesn't prove that it was an amount necessary to ensure an uninterrupted supply."

Edited November 10, 2013 by GregS

[Celliach]

Greg, why don't you just go get yourself arrested for the behavior you keep saying is legal?  That way you can totally prove to all of us that you are right and we are all wrong.  That's a simple solution to the problem of who is right in this debate.  Go put your money where your mouth is, and go win the court case yourself.

[GregS]

Greg, why don't you just go get yourself arrested for the behavior you keep saying is legal?  That way you can totally prove to all of us that you are right and we are all wrong.  That's a simple solution to the problem of who is right in this debate.  Go put your money where your mouth is, and go win the court case yourself.

Tee hee, guffaw, and I'm laughing so hard it hurts.

 

Silly bumpkin.

Edited November 9, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Cell he puts up a statement from an unknown attorney that clearly doesn't doesn't support his position, and thinks that somehow settled the discussion?  The attorney is pointing out the many problems with trying to use a contract as part of a section 8 defense, but the big news is that an unknown attorney looked at it and crapped on it.

 

Did you actually read the statement?

 

Potentially not admissible

Up to the judge/jury to decide how much weight it has after a prosecutor challenge

Puts the patient in the line of fire (I assume it is the CG on trial because they are the one that broke the law by selling outside of the registry)

Finally, even the 2.5 oz limit will not necessarily protect the transaction- you could be in the position of PROVING that you needed 4 grams to provide an 'uninterrupted' supply for your condition.

 

You got your 'contract' crapped on and still you only hear what you want to hear Greg.

 

You really need to stop posting because you just dig deeper and deeper holes for yourself.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Well you run along in private then.  You really need to listen to folks that understand this a little better than you do, like the attorney, like cell, like many others.  This is not a good way to do this from a patient safety aspect.  You even put up the cautions given you by your unknown lawyer friend, you need to listen to them, and if you just don't get what he is saying, ask someone to explain it.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

What is the downside for a registered patient and their caregiver having this agreement to fall back on if something goes wrong? Say a neighbor were to call the police, resulting in a search while you are away from home? What when the judge and prosecutor then proceed to fuk up your life?

 

What is the downside?

Edited November 10, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

But will a jury ever or even see it?

[Dr. Bob]

What is the downside for a registered patient and their caregiver having this agreement to fall back on if something goes wrong? Say a neighbor were to call the police, resulting in a search while you are away from home? What when the judge and prosecutor then proceed to fuk up your life?

 

What is the downside?

The downside is that many will look at the contract as a false sense of security.  It really does little, if anything.  More than like, as you have been told many times, it simply wont hurt the case.  Bob's point is correct, 'will a jury ever see it'?  Maybe, maybe not.

 

You have to remember something about human nature.  It is easier to do something you normally wouldn't do if you 'have permission' to do it.

 

Example.  

 

I don't know if there is such a thing as an 'unregistered' caregiver.

I want to sell my overages and make some money.

I have a patient with a card that wants to buy my overages.

They give me a contract saying I am their 'unregistered caregiver' which says it is ok for me to sell them my overages.

I give them meds and they give me money.

 

The patient (undercover cop) arrests me, and I am convicted in court for going outside the registry and selling a schedule 1 controlled substance to someone that wasn't MY patient.

 

But GregS Said it was ok I tell the judge........

 

Don't give people 'permission' to do something you can't offer even a reasonable chance of success in defending.

[GregS]

The downside is that many will look at the contract as a false sense of security.  It really does little, if anything.  More than like, as you have been told many times, it simply wont hurt the case.  Bob's point is correct, 'will a jury ever see it'?  Maybe, maybe not.

 

You have to remember something about human nature.  It is easier to do something you normally wouldn't do if you 'have permission' to do it.

 

Example.  

 

I don't know if there is such a thing as an 'unregistered' caregiver.

I want to sell my overages and make some money.

I have a patient with a card that wants to buy my overages.

They give me a contract saying I am their 'unregistered caregiver' which says it is ok for me to sell them my overages.

I give them meds and they give me money.

 

The patient (undercover cop) arrests me, and I am convicted in court for going outside the registry and selling a schedule 1 controlled substance to someone that wasn't MY patient.

 

But GregS Said it was ok I tell the judge........

 

Don't give people 'permission' to do something you can't offer even a reasonable chance of success in defending.

Tee hee. Some might look at it with a false sense of security, and others use it prophylactically to protect themselves when the every day, garden variety protections no longer work. That is reason enough.

 

This other protection, in addition to sec. 4, is there for a reason.

Edited November 11, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

That is an important point zap. It is painfully apparent that Sec. 4 does not go far enough to protect us.

[Dr. Bob]

If you are linked through the registry it isn't needed, but certainly wouldn't hurt.  It has always been presented as a substitute for the registry, which is a false sense of security.

 

I stand by my statement that it is a bad idea, only a registry link will be respected by the courts.  Unless you disagree with that statement Zap, I don't think we should be encouraging ANYTHING outside of the registry on this board.  But it is your call.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Nothing seemingly about it. It is real world stuff.

 

I think we can expect this to hasten a sec. 8 defense to its conclusion and diminish costs. The meter runs till the case is over. It is also intended to diminish the need to bring witnesses, both expert, saving big money, and otherwise. A physician who charges 300 dollars an hour from the time he leaves home till the time he arrives back has to cost a small fortune. Good attorneys typically charge about 400 dollars an hour in fifteen minute increments. That is, if they make a four minute phone call, the client is billed the entire fifteen minutes; a cost of a hundred dollars. If an eighteen minute call the billable charge is two hundred dollars. Having better evidence to shorten due process in favor of defendants has no downside. The alternative is to go to court without it. It costs nothing more than paper and ink.

 

There is greater risk running without it than there is with.

Edited November 11, 2013 by GregS

[+Malamute]

It does exactly not that Gregs.

 

 The paper contract means absolutely nothing and you must get the testimony of the involved individuals to prove your case,... period.

 

 The patient must testify for said caregiver in court.

 

 

 We have explained this and told you this I can't even count how many times.

[Celliach]

Again Greg, if you're so sure you're right about this, why don't you get yourself arrested so you can set precedence in the courts for everyone else?  You sure would be helping the community as a whole when you get your favorable opinion from the Appellate Court.  I'm sure we could start a legal fund to finance your court case.